COMMITTEE ON THE Monday 30 October 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: The Committee met at 2.37 pm. (The Chairman (Mr Wells) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Wells): Once again, I urge members to switch off their mobile phones. Can we take a note of the line-ups, party by party? Sinn Féin? Mr O’Dowd: I am deputising for Conor Murphy. Ms Ruane: I am here in place of Michelle Gildernew. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Just the two members for Sinn Féin? Mr O’Dowd: Yes, just the two today. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The SDLP? Mr A Maginness: I am standing in for Mark Durkan. Dr Farren is here. P J Bradley is deputising for Dr McDonnell. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Alliance Party? Mr Ford: I am playing myself, as is customary, and on my own this afternoon. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is Mrs Long still on holiday? Mr Ford: Naomi is otherwise engaged — on serious business. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Ulster Unionists? Mr McGimpsey: I am substituting for David McNarry. Mr Kennedy: We expect that Alan McFarland will be here at some stage. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The DUP? Mr P Robinson: Lord Morrow and Ian Paisley Jnr are in the Building. If they both arrive, you will not see my heels for dust. If one of them comes in, I will be substituting for the other. Mr Kennedy: That will be easy to write down. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Clerks are all members of Mensa, so they can work that one out. Let us move to the minutes. As members know, there are two sets of minutes for consideration. We did not agree the minutes for 23 October at our last meeting because of the slight confusion about how we recorded the voting intentions of each party. Members have had a chance to look at those. Point 5 of the minutes for 23 October shows how votes were recorded: “There was not consensus and the proposal fell. The Alliance, DUP and UUP supported the proposal and SDLP objected. Sinn Fein did not support or object.” That was the way in which we logged the votes for each decision. Do members have any thoughts on that matter? Mr Kennedy: That appears to be accurate. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is the Committee content with the minutes of its meeting on 23 October? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I turn to the minutes of the Committee’s meeting on 25 October, which are quite extensive. Do members have any comments, additions or corrections? Does the Committee accept those minutes as a true and accurate reflection of its proceedings on 25 October? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Members will recall that, at our last meeting, we discussed a letter that we sent to the Northern Ireland Office requesting copies of any additional papers that had been circulated to one or more parties at St Andrews. I made a commitment to Seán Farren that if any material came forth, I would make a donation of £50 to his favourite charity. I am absolutely certain that that £50 is as safe as the Rock of Gibraltar. Nothing has come forward to us. Mr Ford: Not even an acknowledgement of our letter, Chairman? That is most unusual. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are there any NIO officials waiting outside? The Committee Clerk: No. Mr Ford: Are they too embarrassed to show up? The Chairman (Mr Wells): They have not shown up, so we cannot embarrass them. Mr Ford: I do not think that we would have embarrassed them anyway. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is highly unlikely that that material will ever see the light of day, at least so far as this Committee is concerned. However, we have reminded the NIO of its failure to deliver anything. No doubt, we will place that issue in our bring-forward file. Members will know that the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland is continuing to meet. We requested a report on the subgroup’s deliberations, and I have received a memorandum from the Committee Clerk, dated 27 October, which reports on the subgroup’s meeting of 26 October. I understand that the subgroup met this morning and, indeed, some members may have just come from that meeting. Mr P Robinson: The subgroup met this afternoon, and we have just come from that meeting. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That meeting of the subgroup was to prepare for the meeting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Wednesday 1 November. Do members have any comments on the Committee Clerk’s memorandum? On reading it in detail, one or two points may emerge, but are there any general points on it? I draw particular attention to the submission made by the Consumer Council vis-à-vis water reform legislation and a funding gap. Mr Kennedy: Chairman, are we being asked to endorse the memorandum? The Chairman (Mr Wells): That will be the next stage. We are particularly dealing with the second page of the memorandum, in which the Consumer Council points out that there will be a public services funding gap caused by the delay in water reform and the capital backlog, which the Consumer Council believes will have to be paid for by the Government through additional funding. Mr Kennedy: Was that the unanimous view of the subgroup? Mr Poots: Yes it was, and I propose that we support that view. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I acknowledge that proposal, but it is important to let members know the full facts, because this is quite a significant decision. Mr Poots: There was unanimous support, Mr Chairman. Dr Farren: Is there any indication as to the scale of the required funding? Mr Poots: A briefing paper estimated an infrastructural gap of around £150 million for the incoming year, which we have identified will be spent and which is not covered by the Northern Ireland block. The paper also anticipated that a further £100 million would be spent on water rates relief for the incoming year, stretching the infrastructural gap to £250 million. That issue is for Wednesday’s meeting with the Chancellor. The subgroup agreed that part of the financial package should allow the legislation to be delayed for a year in order to identify a fairer and more equitable system of water charges than the currently proposed system. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do other parties have any thoughts on that? 2.45 pm Mr P Robinson: From both the Department of Finance and Personnel briefing received this morning, and the briefing session that the subgroup has just had, it has emerged that, whatever way we might want to phase or adjust it, we are likely to get more mileage from the Chancellor if we accept some of the building blocks. Members may want to keep that in mind during these discussions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are there any other views? There seems to be general support in this Committee for the subgroup’s decision. It made a couple of other recommendations, but I want the water reform legislation and the implications of its delay sorted out before we continue. Mr Poots: The Consumer Council said that a substantial amount of the money that will be raised next year will automatically go back to the Treasury, because the money spent on the Water Service was in the form of a loan. The Consumer Council argued that the proposed water reforms would not inject much capital back into the Water Service, and that only £3 million or £4 million would be realised out of the first year’s income. That argument was based on the Consumer Council’s own research. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Were any other Committee members also present at the meeting with the Consumer Council? Do any other parties have any membership overlap? Mr Kennedy: We will just have to trust Mr Poots. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We must accept Mr Poots’s recollections, because we have not yet seen the Hansard report of that meeting. Are members content to support the subgroup’s recommendations? As there was consensus in the subgroup, there was clearly all-party support. Are members content? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The issue of water charges and water reform legislation will feature in the subgroup’s third report, and, no doubt, will be raised during the question-and-answer session with the Chancellor. The subgroup also recommended that the Committee request the Secretary of State to provide full details of the financial package agreed in 2005 between the Secretary of State and the Treasury. I presume that that recommendation was also unanimous. Are members happy to endorse that request for information and put it in writing to Mr Hain? Mr Ford: Are you offering any payments to Seán Farren’s favourite charity on that one, Chairman? The Chairman (Mr Wells): It will be slightly easier to get those details, but it is highly unlikely that they will see the light of day. However, it is worth the price of a stamp to ask for that information. Are members content? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next request might be more difficult to fulfil. The subgroup recommended that the Preparation for Government Committee consider commissioning an independent study to accurately determine the costs associated with a delay in implementing the water reform legislation. That is a major undertaking for the Committee, but I am open to members’ suggestions on how to proceed. Obviously, we would have to bring in expert advice. Mr Kennedy: From where does the Committee get the authority to commission such a study, and from where will the money come? The Committee Clerk: The money will come from the Committee budget. If the Committee agrees to carry out the study, that will be the necessary authorisation. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there enough money in the budget to undertake such a study? The Committee Clerk: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Apparently we have plenty of money, which is good to hear. Mr Poots: Has the Assembly’s research team done any work on the basis that the matter would be brought to today’s meeting? The Committee Clerk: We will ask the researchers to decide whether they have the expertise or whether we must seek independent financial advice. Mr Poots: It would be useful to have their analysis of what that will involve. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Should the Preparation for Government Committee deal with the matter, or should we bat it back to the economic subgroup? It strikes me that the subgroup would be much better equipped to deal with economic issues than we, as we normally deal with constitutional and political issues, such as the St Andrews Agreement, rather than the nitty-gritty of economic packages. If the subgroup asks us for the authority to carry out that work, I am sure that we could give it; however, I am not sure that it is our job to carry out such research. The subgroup has contracted two expert advisers. Mr Ford: I accept your point, Chairman. I was not present at the subgroup’s meeting, but it seems entirely reasonable that the Committee should authorise the subgroup to do that work. Logically, the subgroup should do it, because it is involved in a full range of economic issues. It could start by consulting its specialist advisers before establishing whether there is anyone else they must consult. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does that cause anyone doubts? Mr O’Dowd: We have been asked to consider commissioning an independent study. If the economic subgroup has a view or wants to debate further how the matter should progress, we must have all the relevant information before we can make a decision. In principle, I have no difficulty with the subgroup’s doing that work. However, the question is how it will be done, what resources are available, how long the report will take, and so on. We must have that information before we can make a final decision. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a valid point. Before doing that, however, we must establish to whom the “we” refers. If the “we” refers to the Preparation for Government Committee, we must debate the issue; if the “we” refers to the economic subgroup, the issue must be referred to it so that it can agonise about how the work is to be done. Dr Farren: My question is essentially a political one. In order to determine the cost, we were given a ballpark figure a few moments ago. What is the political case for going into great detail at this stage if the principle — that there should be a delay — is not yet accepted? There may be a delay. If so, that is fine: let us fire ahead and find out what the costs are. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Am I not right in thinking, Seán, that there will definitely be a delay in the water reform package, because it is clearly flagged up in the St Andrews Agreement that that will happen? Do you suggest that that is not taken as read? Mr Ford: My understanding is that the judicial review and references in annex C of the St Andrews Agreement say, in effect, that there will be a delay. We must determine what the overall costs for the Northern Ireland budget will be, given the huge increases in rates this year because of delays and various reforms in rates and water charges. Dr Farren: I accept your point. However, if the Government decide that additional finance will not be made available to make good the gap, will there be a review of any recommendation or decision? The Government seem to suggest that the additional funding must be found in the existing block grant, rather than their providing extra funding. Will the decision have to be reviewed if we find that money is committed to such an extent that we cannot find the additional money and the Government decide that they are not willing to provide it? Perhaps I should not anticipate outcomes and decisions at this time. We may have to go ahead and find out the precise details. Mr Poots: Surely that would be a decision for Ministers and of the Executive? The Government will have to deal with that if devolution does not happen; if it does happen, the matter will be the responsibility of the Executive and its Ministers. Seán seems to have a defeatist attitude before we go to the Chancellor. I am quite hopeful that we will get a package. If we get zero, all the parties should withdraw, including those who were sent forward to negotiate in the appropriate manner. Mr P Robinson: If the package is zero, there will not be a deal. The package is an essential ingredient as far as we are concerned. We are not going to the Chancellor to give us something to keep us happy. If we do not have a decent package, we are not going forward. The Chairman (Mr Wells): May I also throw something into the mix? There is the option of referring this to the Programme for Government Committee. That Committee has not actually arrived on the scene, but it almost did. The financial package could be one of the first items on its agenda when it does meet, because it fits neatly in there as well. Mr O’Dowd: We are in danger of repeating arguments made at the economic subgroup. We should ask for a more detailed reasoning behind its request, and we also need to await the meeting between the parties and Gordon Brown. If we were to revisit this at our next meeting, the picture would be a lot clearer. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are we scheduled to meet again? The Committee Clerk: We will be talking about that at the end. The subgroup has asked for an extension of its deadline to 13 November; if Members agree to that, we would not propose to meet until 15 November or 16 November. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is possible. Are there any other thoughts on this? Mr Poots: Can we ask the research team in the Assembly how it would see such a programme being implemented, and what work and cost would be involved? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are you suggesting that we do that, rather than refer it back to the economic subgroup to do that research? Mr Poots: How can the economic subgroup have the power if this Committee has the power? The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have the power to authorise the subgroup to do it. Mr Poots: Do you mean that we could just delegate it to the economic subgroup to make up its own mind? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, give the subgroup the power to do it. Ms Ruane: We would need to see the terms of reference and the terms would need to be independent. The subgroup knows what it wants, because it is working on these issues. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do we have consensus on that? Shall we give the subgroup the authority to carry out this research and let it agonise over the modus operandi? Mr P Robinson: Why are we doing it at all? Can we not just ask the Department? Do we not trust the Department to give us the correct figures? Is that the suggestion? The Chairman (Mr Wells): The reason that we are doing this is that the subgroup has asked us for the authority to do it. Mr P Robinson: Why is anyone doing it? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I do not know what the rationale behind it was, as I was not at the subgroup meeting. Mr Poots: The answer to the question is that we do not trust the Department to give us the correct figures. Mr O’Dowd: The term “independent” shows the subgroup’s mistrust. Mr Poots: That was outside the boundaries of this room. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are we content then to do it that way? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): OK. No dissent as such. The economic subgroup has been beavering away, as folk know, and coming up with some quite good stuff. It has asked for an extension of the deadline to submit its third report to this Committee from 30 October to 13 November. I do not know why this has happened, but I am sure that there is a very good reason. Edwin, were you there? Mr Poots: I am not sure that I was, but the subgroup will not have a third report ready for the 31 October deadline. That is why 13 November has been suggested. Mr P Robinson: Sounds like a good enough reason to me. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is also some key research by the Economic Research Institute that will not be coming through until 30 October, so it will need time to look at that. There are difficulties. Mr P Robinson: Victor Hewitt’s group is doing some stuff on corporation tax. Mr Poots: There is some very good work being done on that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That seems a reasonable request, and we have always been flexible previously. I just need to ask members formally if they are content with that. Mr Kennedy: Is it correct that the deadline is to be extended to 13 November? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. The deadline for the third report is to be extended to 13 November. Mr Kennedy: Does that extension mess up other deadlines, such as that of 10 November? Is the economic challenges subgroup’s report not considered essential to that deadline? Mr P Robinson: Deadline? What deadline? The Chairman (Mr Wells): As Mr Kennedy has said, the St Andrews Agreement cites 10 November as a date for there to have been significant developments. However, I do not see how that deadline would affect the subgroup’s work. 3.00 pm Mr Poots: Dissolution is not until 24 November, so we still have 11 days from 13 November. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Preparation for Government Committee will meet on Wednesday 15 November to consider the subgroup’s report. Therefore, granting the subgroup an extension would tie in reasonably well with the Committee’s work programme. Are members agreed that the subgroup should be granted an extension to its deadline to submit its third report to this Committee? The proposal looks OK to me, but it is entirely a matter for the Committee to decide. Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can we formally agree that the Committee will meet on or around Wednesday 15 November? Does that particular day suit members? Mr Kennedy: Is that date to be considered an important anniversary, then? The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is the anniversary of the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985. Mr Kennedy: Well done, sir. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That may come up on a TV quiz show some time. Mr Kennedy: You will win the car for that. Mr Poots: Restore the protest flags. Mr Ford: Hold a coming-of-age party. Mr Kennedy: Do we have to hold hands on dates such as that? Mr Ford: Speak for yourself. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Wednesday 15 November will mark the twenty-first anniversary. Does that date suit everyone? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Put that date in your diaries. We will meet as normal, presumably at 10.00 am. The meeting will not take all day; the Committee will probably just sit in the morning, unless something else crops up. Please tell your official attendees to keep 15 November free. That will give us time to agree the subgroup’s report for a possible debate in a plenary sitting of the Assembly before 24 November 2006 — or even on 24 November 2006. Mr O’Dowd: It could be the farewell affair. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That ties things up nicely. I am a wee bit worried about the lack of dissent being shown. Mr O’Dowd: We have not agreed to there being a possible plenary sitting, but to having a Committee meeting on 15 November. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Members have all received a copy of the Committee’s draft response to the Secretary of State and have had a chance to look at it. There are 98 paragraphs in the draft response; if we include the executive summary, there are 105 paragraphs. Therefore, we will go through it in nice, digestible sections. As is normal in these situations, I will allow anybody who misses something to return to it. I am conscious of the fact that we are pushing through quite a body of work, so I do not want people to miss things as we rattle along. As we are agreeing a report, the Committee would normally sit in closed session. Hansard will be very tearful to hear this, but we would normally ask Hansard not to record this section. Are members agreed that we do not have Hansard present? That is the protocol that we always follow. We may keep a tape of the proceedings to assist the Committee Clerks, but we do not publish a verbatim account of our discussion. Are members happy enough with that? Mr O’Dowd: I wish to clarify a point. Is this a report or a response? The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is a response, because there was not time to prepare a formal report, with all the evidence attached. We are simply sending a letter to the Secretary of State that outlines the deliberations of the Committee and the issues on which we agreed and disagreed. Mr O’Dowd: If it is simply a response or a letter to the Secretary of State, we have no difficulty with Hansard continuing to report the meeting. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We would normally not have Hansard present, in order to allow members to talk more freely and to reach conclusions. If Hansard is here, members tend to “play to the gallery” to some extent and adopt set positions. However, we keep a tape of the closed session, and if the Committee Clerks have any trouble working out what members have agreed, they can refer to the tape. When the Preparation for Government Committee came to discuss its three draft reports, as well as those of the economic subgroup, we took an early decision that we would not have a Hansard report of those deliberations. Do any other members feel strongly on this issue? Mr Ford: I am relaxed. Mr Poots: I feel strongly that we should move on as quickly as possible. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That protocol was used in Committees in the previous Assembly. Mr O’Dowd: I am not insisting; I am just saying that we have no objections to Hansard’s staying. The Chairman (Mr Wells): A clear view is needed. Should Hansard stay or go? Dr Farren: I have never objected to Hansard’s staying. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members content to let Hansard stay? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The introduction to the Committee’s response to the Secretary of State on annex A to the St Andrews Agreement, which will take the form of a letter, is contained in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the draft report. It should, more or less, be a statement of fact. Mr Kennedy: It is almost akin to agreeing minutes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, it is, but a member can add, propose to change, or correct something at any stage. We will go back and have a catch-all session to be certain that nothing has been overlooked. Are there any problems with the first five paragraphs? Mr O’Dowd: I want to propose an additional paragraph along the lines of: “This response in no way interferes with, or negates, the rights of individual parties to respond to the St Andrews proposals, following the conclusion of each party’s internal consultation.” The Chairman (Mr Wells): Presumably, you would want that in — Mr O’Dowd: On each page. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do you want that to be a new paragraph 5? Mr O’Dowd: That is the proposal anyway. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will do a quick run around on that proposal, because it is an important issue. I will start with the SDLP: how do its members feel about that additional paragraph? Dr Farren: We reserve the right to make individual responses. This is a work in progress; we have not yet reached the date by which we must make the response known, and the situation might change between now and then. I would like to think that the issues on which we reached a level of agreement or, indeed, full consensus, would persist. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That would be like having our cake and eating it, Seán. I think that members would like to reserve the right to — Dr Farren: Since we are all members of parties that have been invited to respond individually, and this is a collective — Mr P Robinson: You are not empowered to take decisions on behalf of your party. Dr Farren: I am. I said that I hoped that agreement between parties would persist. I have no reason to believe that it will not. I would be disappointed if parties were to resile from any level of agreement that has been reached, and, certainly, those SDLP members who are present are empowered to act on the party’s behalf. That is why we are here. Mr Ford: I am empowered to speak on behalf of the Alliance Party Assembly group. I am not in a position to prejudge the opinion that will be taken next Saturday at the party council meeting and, on that basis, it seems that John’s proposal is stating the obvious. However, where parties have reached agreement, hopefully they will be able to encourage their wider party structures to go along with that agreement. However, we cannot bind people to it. Mr Kennedy: John’s proposal is slightly unnecessary. It is almost a belt-and-braces approach, and considerable effort has been made at this Committee to reach levels of agreement on other issues. One hopes and imagines that those levels of agreement would carry through in good faith. It seems slightly premature to lay down conditions for that. Mr P Robinson: It is a statement of fact. We do not have the ability to require every group to accept the outcome of decisions of this Committee. However, like Seán, I hope that, where the Committee has reached consensus on a decision, those members who agreed to that will attempt to ensure that their colleagues also accept it. Mr O’Dowd: The other side of that argument is that, after the consultation, we may be able to reach agreement on matters on which we have not yet been able to reach consensus. Therefore we are not tying ourselves into the negative or the positive. After the consultation, parties will be allowed to respond to the Governments in a more frank manner, so it is a statement of fact in that sense. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We seem to have a variation of views. Dr Farren: When one distils our remarks to their core, our views are not really very different at all. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Although members may not agree with the proposal, are they content to let it sit in the interests of other parties. Alternatively, do they want to move to a vote? Does any party feel strongly that the proposed additional paragraph should not be included? That is perhaps the best way to phrase it. Mr Kennedy: Yes; the UUP would object to it The Chairman (Mr Wells): In that case, we must have a recorded vote. Sinn Féin obviously says yes to the new paragraph. How does the SDLP feel? Dr Farren: I will accept it, but I wonder about a few aspects of it. The Hansard report will reflect our views. Having listened to all the views, my ears have not detected a huge difference between us. I would be happier if we left the matter that our discussion will be recorded in Hansard and that we do not have a vote or include the proposed paragraph. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is that a no? Mr Kennedy: It is more no than a relaxed view, anyway. Dr Farren: Yes, it is. I do not think that the paragraph is necessary. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is a faint hint of a no. Dr Farren: It is a no to the inclusion of the paragraph, but we obviously cannot take back what we have said. Mr Ford: I am opting for a relaxed kind of yes, which means that I am not dying in a ditch about this. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Ulster Unionist Party said no. How does the DUP feel? Mr P Robinson: The DUP would say yes because we base our decisions not on individual items, but on an overall package. Mr Poots: Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can I have the votes of the Ulster jury, please? The Committee Clerk: Sinn Féin said yes; the SDLP said no; the Alliance Party said yes; the UUP said no; and the DUP said yes. There is no consensus. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Under the new system, we do not have to operate by consensus. This is the first time that we have really tested this system. Mr Kennedy: Is it not up to the Secretary of State to identify the level of consensus? The Chairman (Mr Wells): In that case, do we leave something in or leave something out? This is the first time that we have tested this new system by actually writing something down on a piece of paper. The Secretary of State cannot decide that. Technically, we have a 3:2 split. Mr Poots: On that point, that was not how the Assembly Commission conducted its votes. For example, if the Alliance Party had taken a different view on a matter, the parties that represented more MLAs would still have been saying yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): However, the party numbers are 32, 24 and 6. Mr Poots: Yes, but had the Alliance Party voted no, the parties with more MLAs would still have said yes; thus, in effect, more MLAs would have said yes than said no. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Fortunately, the maths worked. Mr Kennedy: I hear that the new Administration is already effective. Mr O’Dowd: Chairman, although Sinn Féin benefits from your interpretation of the voting system, I must disagree with it. Sinn Féin believes that consensus is required among the parties for anything to be included in anything. As far as our party is concerned, the matter has fallen. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do we have the Secretary of State’s wording on this? Mr P Robinson: How about a coin? Mr O’Dowd: A euro? The Chairman (Mr Wells): My clear impression was that, until the meetings at St Andrews, we operated by consensus and that since then, we have operated by recording the votes of individual parties. Do those votes not carry the weight of membership with them? Mr Ford: The Secretary of State said that he would take account of those votes. He did not say that it was a matter of simple arithmetic. The Chairman (Mr Wells): When it then comes to make — The Committee Clerk: The Secretary of State did not direct that; he said he was “minded”. It was not a direction. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is “minded” not an instruction? The Committee Clerk: No. Mr P Robinson: That just means that he will do whatever he wants anyway. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I want to check what the Secretary of State said in his letter of 13 October. He said: “I am minded to accept that in the event of votes occurring in the PfG, that these will be taken reflecting the respective strengths of the parties in the Assembly. The Government would consider the voting outcome in reaching its conclusions on issues raised.” That is fine if there is a general discussion — he will weigh the votes — but when it comes to including a paragraph in the report, either it is in or it is not. 3.15 pm Mr Ford: Presumably, there is parliamentary precedent for a situation where a majority decides on a report, and a minority has the opportunity to put in its dissenting view. Such a dissenting view could read: “The Ulster Unionists and the SDLP did not agree to the inclusion of paragraph 5”. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Would that go in the main body of the report, rather than in the minutes? Mr P Robinson: That would be a minority report. Mr Ford: It would be a minority report as an addendum to the main report, as I understand, but some members of the Committee have much more parliamentary experience than I do. Mr P Robinson: That would have to be a separate report. Mr Ford: We could be conciliatory and agree that it would be published as an annex to the report. Ms Ruane: We could put in the report that there was a discussion on this issue, and instead of stating that we did not have a majority or minority view, we could note that the parties that agreed were Sinn Féin, the DUP and the Alliance Party and that the other parties did not agree. We could just state it as fact. Mr Kennedy: We are making a drama out of a crisis. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If that were done, there would at least be a paragraph in the report that alludes to the discussion and states the actual position. Everybody can agree, because it is a true reflection. Is that perhaps the way around the problem? It may come up as we proceed. Mr P Robinson: That is really what an awful lot of the rest of it says. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are we happy that that is the way that we should do it? We have ordered the vote and put in a paragraph to reflect it: Sinn Féin proposed this, there was no agreement, and the parties voted x, y and z. That brings us on to strand one issues, which are covered in paragraphs 6 to 27 of the draft response. Those paragraphs deal with the ministerial code and the Executive role in the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) and the British-Irish Council (BIC), and attendance at those bodies. We will start with paragraph 6. Dr Farren: Paragraph 6 refers explicitly to the SDLP. I did not have time to go back to Hansard to clarify precisely what was said on that occasion. The view that I was trying to express was perhaps conveyed in stronger terms than I intended. I was trying to say: “Although the SDLP was not opposed to some elements of the ministerial code being in statute, it was not in favour of all the elements proposed in annex A being included in statute.” Obviously, I am tied to whatever was said on that occasion, but paragraph 6 expresses rather strongly the party’s view, which is reflected in our contribution to the various discussions on the particular issues that were raised in annex A. We assented to enshrining some in statute; however, on others, we were strongly opposed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The wording could be changed to read: “The SDLP expressed its strong objection to the inclusion of some elements of the ministerial code in statute.” Would that be acceptable? Dr Farren: None of us said that all of the ministerial code should be enshrined in statute. Mr P Robinson: That is true, but, according to the draft response, we did. Paragraph 10 claims that that is what I said, and I want it to be changed to reflect that I did not say that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Obviously it is important that — Dr Farren: I also thought that paragraph 10 was a bit too strong. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next five paragraphs are simply the views of the five parties. It is vital that members of the Committee are happy that the document reflects what they said, whether by coming up with a form of words now or by letting the Clerks, using the Hansard tape, devise something else. Dr Farren: To try to capture essentially what we were saying, I would have used language along the lines that I indicated a moment ago. I propose that paragraph 6 reads: “Although the SDLP is not opposed to some elements of the ministerial code being included in statute, it does not agree that all the elements proposed be so included.” Mr P Robinson: In paragraph 10, I was looking for the change: “The DUP stated that the party was prepared to put the key elements into statute.” That is not dissimilar to what Seán says. The Chairman (Mr Wells): How will we handle the mechanics of that, Seán? Do you want the staff to write it up, based on your views, or — Dr Farren: Do you want the amendment that I offered? The Committee Clerk: It will be on the tape. Dr Farren: Since you have that, I will look at it, and, if necessary, correct and tighten it up. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You have to trust the staff to do it that way. Will you be around tomorrow so that you can sign off the minutes? Dr Farren: I will be around in the afternoon. However, I will also be contactable by phone. The Chairman (Mr Wells): In this situation, we will have to ask each party to make any changes in that way. Dr Farren: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 7 is entirely for Sinn Féin. Is it a reasonable summary of the party’s expressed views? Mr O’Dowd: It is a fair enough reflection of Sinn Féin’s position. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If Sinn Féin is happy, we are agreed on paragraph 7. Paragraph 8 concerns the views of the Ulster Unionist Party. Mr Kennedy: Paragraph 8 is an accurate reflection of our views. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 9 concerns the views of the Alliance Party. Mr Ford: We are content with that paragraph. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The DUP wants to include in paragraph 10 the phrase: “to put key elements into statute” rather than stating that the party is: “prepared to put everything into statute.” I take it that if the DUP are happy with that then every other party is. Mr P Robinson: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 11 relates to the Chairperson. I do not know whether Mr Molloy or myself was the Chairperson at that stage. Paragraph 11 is OK. We move on to paragraph 12, for which we return to the SDLP. Mr Kennedy: Do we have to lock those first 11 paragraphs? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I had hoped that we had been locking them one by one. If it comes to a vote, the paragraph can be re-recorded. If we do it that way, we can take it that five parties are for and none are against, and that all parties are happy. Once a party says that it is happy, there is not as much room for dissension from the others. The paragraph is simply a statement of that party’s position. We return to the SDLP to discuss paragraph 12. Dr Farren: I have added a note in the margin to myself at this point. I apologise; I obtained my copy of the minutes only this morning, and I have not had time to check Hansard to see precisely what was said. Paragraph 12 should perhaps read: “complete discretion and without consultation with the relevant Ministers.” During some part of the discussion on that, I said that the paragraph seemed to suggest that discretion without any requirement for consultation with relevant Ministers. That is reflected. If there were no relevant Ministers, the First and Deputy First Ministers would still have discretion to bring a controversial matter to the Executive. My party would be satisfied with a clause that read: “without any consultation with the relevant Ministers” The Chairman (Mr Wells): Please check the wording tomorrow to be sure that you are happy with it. Paragraph 13 concerns Sinn Féin. Mr O’Dowd: My party is satisfied. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 14 reads: “Alliance, DUP and UUP did not express any particular views.” Is that a true reflection of the stance of those three parties? Mr Ford: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 15 relates to the Chairperson. Mr P Robinson: On paragraph 14 — [Interruption.] Mr Kennedy: How about a member’s mobile phone ringing in Committee being a resignation issue? Mr O’Dowd: Perhaps it is an exclusion issue. Mr P Robinson: Returning to paragraph 14 of the Committee’s response, the DUP generally supports paragraph 4 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement. The Chairman (Mr Wells): In that case, that comment would become the new paragraph 14 in the Committee’s response; therefore a new paragraph 15 would read: “Alliance, DUP and UUP did not express any particular views.” It has been confirmed that the DUP generally supports paragraph 4 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement. Are members happy to separate paragraph 14 of the Committee’s response and Mr Robinson’s comments? Two different paragraphs would be formed. Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That means that we will also have a new paragraph 16 in the Committee’s response. Consensus was reached on paragraph 5 of annex A. Members should not worry if we miss something in the response; we will come back to catch any last-minute comments. Mr P Robinson: The DUP’s issue with paragraph 5 of annex A to the agreement is that the Assembly’s endorsement of the ministerial code would have to be consistent with the provisions that this Committee agrees. I want it to be on record that the DUP would move forward on that basis. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do you want that included in the Committee’s report as well as in Hansard? Mr P Robinson: Yes. That is the DUP response to paragraph 16 of the Committee’s response. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have been advised to use the original numbering system to keep the process less complicated, but the paragraphs in the Committee’s response will be renumbered to reflect any changes. The original paragraph 17 of the draft response states that: “The DUP was content with the proposals in paragraphs 16 and 17.” Going through this process is complicated, as one must read several documents in parallel. Mr P Robinson: Will you remind me why we jumped from paragraph 5 to paragraph 16 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Those paragraphs were put together to form a section on the ministerial code. Mr P Robinson: Will we jump back again later? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Is the DUP content with the proposals that were made in paragraphs 16 and 17 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement? Mr P Robinson: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Does the SDLP have any requirements in relation to paragraph 18 of the Committee’s response? Dr Farren: That paragraph is fine. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Sinn Féin issues are dealt with in paragraph 19 of the Committee’s response. Do Sinn Féin members have any response to that paragraph? Mr O’Dowd: Sinn Féin is content with paragraph 19. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 20 deals with Ulster Unionist comments. Mr Kennedy spoke earlier about the issues that are dealt with in paragraphs 16 and 17 of annex A. Given that, is he coming back for the rest of the meeting? Mr McGimpsey: Yes, he will be back. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are you happy to agree paragraph 20 of the draft response in his absence? Mr McGimpsey: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 21 of the Committee’s response deals with the Chairperson’s proposals on paragraph 16 of annex A. The result of the vote on paragraph 16 of annex A will be inserted into the Committee’s response. We could not agree that paragraph because members were unable to agree the minutes of the meetings of 23 October and 25 October. The result of the vote on that will be included in the response. Paragraph 22 concerns the Chairperson, and again the vote will be inserted later. Moving on to paragraph 18 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement and paragraph 23 of our response, we are back with the Ulster Unionists, who felt that the current system was “perfectly adequate.” Mr McGimpsey: That paragraph is OK. 3.30 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): We return to Sinn Féin for paragraph 24. Mr O’Dowd: We are satisfied with that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 25 reflects the concerns of the Alliance Party. Mr Ford: I do not have the previous Hansard report in front of me, but my memory is that the issue would be better covered if the words “regretted that the final sentence” are replaced with the words: “regretted the implicit sectarianism and that the final sentence”. Mr Poots: That removes the humour from that one. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am sure that you do not want the humour omitted. Mr Poots: It is a serious document. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 26 is for the SDLP. Dr Farren: That paragraph is OK. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Gosh, this is exciting stuff. Paragraph 27 refers to a proposal made by the Chairperson. Again, the vote will be inserted later. We move on to paragraph 6 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement. Paragraph 28 of the Committee’s response contains comments by Sinn Féin: that party did not support the proposal. Mr O’Dowd: We are satisfied with the way in which our position is outlined in paragraph 28. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 29 contains comments by the DUP. Mr P Robinson: Yes, that is fine. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 30 is for the Ulster Unionists. Mr McGimpsey: Our view is as expressed in paragraph 30. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 31 is for the SDLP. Dr Farren: We are content with that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 32 is for the Alliance Party. Mr Ford: We are content. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 33 is for myself. Mr Ford: Could we remove the definite article before the word “Alliance” in line three, please? Mr P Robinson: There is nothing definite about them. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 34 refers to the Pledge of Office, which was my proposal. There was consensus on that. Paragraph 35 was not as successful. All parties except the Ulster Unionist Party supported it. Again, that paragraph reflects the record of that vote in the minutes. Mr Ford: Please remove the definite article again — I will not say it every time. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There will have to be thorough proof-reading of this document when we have finished to make certain that it all checks out. It is quite complex. We move on to the Pledge of Office, and paragraph 8 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement. The Chairman’s proposal is contained in paragraph 36 of the Committee’s response, and there was consensus. Paragraph 37 deals with paragraph 8 of annex A and is a factual comment — as is paragraph 38. Paragraph 39 is very much for the DUP. There was considerable debate on the issue. Mr P Robinson: That paragraph is OK. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 40 encapsulates a lengthy discussion on timescales. Is the UUP happy enough with that? Mr Kennedy: Yes, that is OK. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 41 sets out Sinn Féin’s position. Mr O’Dowd: Deputy Speaker, Sinn Féin agrees with paragraph 41, except the first part of the last sentence: “The party stated that it intended to make all elements of the St Andrews Agreement work”. Sinn Féin wants that part of the sentence to be deleted. [Laughter.] If any other party wants to put that line beside any of its statements, it is more than welcome to do so. My only reason for raising that point is that Sinn Féin cannot make that statement ahead of its party consultation. It is not a reflection of anything else. The final part of that sentence can stay: “the decisions of the party in relation to policing could not be pre-empted.” Also in paragraph 41, Sinn Féin’s preferred form of “ardchomhairle” is “Ard Chomhairle”: two separate words, with a capital “A” and a capital “D”. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Many of us spotted that. Mr O’Dowd: I knew that you were going to raise that, so I had to get in before you. Ms Ruane: Perhaps the missing fada from the “e” in “Sinn Fein” could be added. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If the first part of that sentence is dropped, as far as “that”, the final sentence will, therefore, read: “Sinn Fein stated that the decisions of the party in relation to policing could not be pre-empted.” Mr O’Dowd: Sorry, Deputy Speaker, will you repeat that sentence? The Chairman (Mr Wells): “Sinn Féin stated that the decisions of the party in relation to policing could not be pre-empted.” Mr O’Dowd: Yes, that is OK. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The tape will pick that up. Paragraph 42 refers to what was a long and complex debate, and it is important to take it carefully and slowly. Seán, are you content with the SDLP’s position as it appears in paragraph 42? Dr Farren: Yes, and I compliment those who have been so succinct. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The debate lasted for about an hour and a half. Paragraph 43 sets out the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland’s position. Mr Ford: The Alliance Party is content, other than with your introduction, Chairman. Mr Poots: Is there a particular reason why the Alliance Party is sometimes referred to as “Alliance” and at other times as “the Alliance party”, with a lower case “p”? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I thought that it looked like a capital “P”. Mr Poots: I would not like someone to read into it that we were trying to snub the Alliance Party in any way by using a lower case “p” for party. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Someone obviously has it in for the Alliance Party. Mr Ford: It sounds as though that someone is on your right, Chairman. Mr Poots: I am defending the Alliance Party. I am trying to help it. Mr Ford: Why are you defending us, Edwin? The Chairman (Mr Wells): The response can be edited to ensure that there is no slight to the Alliance Party. Mr Ford: I am totally certain that no slight was intended by the staff who drafted it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 44 sets out the DUP’s proposal and the vote taken on that. Mr Kennedy: Paragraph 44 reflects the outcome of that vote. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is the SDLP happy with paragraph 45? Dr Farren: That is OK. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Right, we are almost halfway through now. Paragraph 9 of the St Andrews Agreement concerns the appointment of Ministers in the Executive, and we start with the Alliance Party’s position on that, as detailed in paragraph 46 of the draft response. Mr Ford: The final part of the sentence should simply read: “handed over to party Nominating Officers.” “Nominating Officers” should be given a capital “N” and a capital “O” as it is a technical phrase taken from the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPRA). The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 47 sets out Sinn Féin’s position. Mr O’Dowd: Sinn Féin is content with that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 48 details the DUP’s position. Mr P Robinson: The DUP is not content with that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): May we have your amendments? Mr P Robinson: I do not like the use of the word “thing” in the first sentence. I prefer: “The DUP stated that it did not believe that a mandatory system was best for Northern Ireland”. At the end of the first sentence, after “the only system”, I want an explanation added: “for which agreement could be obtained at this time” . There are systems that could proceed if there was agreement on them. Mr Kennedy: What is the DUP’s suggested amendment? Mr P Robinson: I just want paragraph 48 to be very clear. Before the sentence that begins: “It could not be said”, paragraph 48 should read: “A mandatory system was the only system for which agreement could be gained at this time.” The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are you happy with the rest of paragraph 48? Mr P Robinson: Chairman, without being read in conjunction with Hansard, I doubt whether people will understand it, but I do. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am slightly worried that members are trying to read our draft response to the Secretary of State, Hansard, and the St Andrews Agreement at the same time. Mr P Robinson: It would be nice if I had Hansard. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is not completely fair. Something major might slip through that could be contrary to what one of the parties had agreed. That might happen simply by default. That would not be the Committee staff’s fault but that of the system under which we are working. We have Hansard for Wednesday 25 October. Mr Kennedy: The first edition is available. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are all other members content that they have been able to follow the three documents in front of them? We are making good progress, but I have no objection if — that clock cannot be right. We are making slow progress. Is that clock correct? It is 3.45 pm. We have been at this a lot longer than I had thought. Mr Poots: Time flies when you are enjoying yourself, Chairman. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am conscious of the fact that, when we have finished going through our draft response to the Secretary of State, members might want to take some time to reflect and have a look at some of the complicated issues, because we will not have another chance to go through the document. Mr P Robinson: May I suggest a reworking of the wording of paragraph 48? The Chairman (Mr Wells): OK. Mr P Robinson: We would like paragraph 48 to read: “The DUP stated that it did not believe that a mandatory system was best for Northern Ireland but that it appeared to be the only system for which agreement could be obtained at this time. Others could not insist on a mandatory system and then require a voluntary mechanism for the election of First Minister and Deputy First Minister.” The sentence beginning: “The DUP also drew attention”, should be a new paragraph, because that is an entirely different issue. It does not make sense where it is at present, unless a sentence is added that says: “It would be necessary for nominations to come from the largest parties in each designation who were not disqualified by exclusion.” 3.45 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): Those are quite major changes to paragraph 48. The DUP feels that that more accurately reflects what it said at the time. Are members content to accept those changes and move on? Mr Ford: Chairman, could Peter read the second section again, where he split the paragraph? Mr P Robinson: I am leaving what remains there as it is, but adding — I cannot remember the words that I used. The Committee Clerk: You said that you wished to add: “It would be necessary for nominations to come from the largest parties in each designation who were not disqualified by exclusion.” The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is paragraph 48. Seán and Alban, paragraph 49 is yours. Dr Farren: That is fine. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 50 is the Ulster Unionist Party’s view. Mr Kennedy: That reflects our view, except where it says: “the proposed move away from the endorsement by the Assembly”. There will not be a vote in the Chamber. That is what we were concerned about. Mr P Robinson: About your having no vote in the Chamber? Mr Kennedy: Yes. The paragraph would be more accurate if it read: “by virtue of having no vote in the Chamber.” The Chairman (Mr Wells): OK. Paragraph 51 is a series of proposals made by David Ford. They have been lifted from the minutes, David, but it is very much your paragraph. Mr Ford: Others may wish to comment on how their thoughts are recorded but, as far as I can see, the three proposals are accurately recorded. The Chairman (Mr Wells): OK. Paragraph 52 is taken from the minutes and is a standard wording. Paragraph 53 deals with the functions of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, which relates to paragraph 10 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement. We will go back to David again. Mr Ford: That is fair enough. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 54 — DUP? Mr P Robinson: That is fine. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Did the Alliance Party not vote for the proposal referred to in paragraph 55? The Committee Clerk: Yes. Mr Kennedy: What happened to the Alliance Party? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I think that it was implicit that the Alliance Party was happy. In fact, we reached consensus on that point. The reason that I questioned that point with the Committee Clerk was that it did not actually appear that way. Mr Ford: The discussion on paragraph 10 of annex A began with my questioning a matter about the mechanisms, but when the vote was recorded, we all agreed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There were a few consensuses. Paragraph 56 is another consensus. Paragraph 11 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement deals with the Committee of the Centre. There was agreement on that paragraph. Mr Poots: It was a very agreeable Committee, Mr Chairman. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That is one of the few issues on which we agreed. We changed something and we all agreed on it. Mr Kennedy: Including the former Chairman of the Committee of the Centre. The Chairman (Mr Wells): A Standing institutional review Committee — a snappy title — is proposed in paragraph 12 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement. Paragraph 58 of our draft response records the Alliance Party’s view. Mr Ford: I wonder, Mr Chairman, if it would be more accurate if the final sentence were to read: “The party was concerned that this proposal appeared to replace this review”. I remember saying that this was ambiguous, which was followed by the Sinn Féin comments on the two mechanisms and the interplay. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Now we move on to paragraph 59 and Sinn Féin. Mr O’Dowd: I am just checking the voting. Paragraph 59 is a fair reflection of the Hansard report. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Then we move on to paragraph 60 and the SDLP. Dr Farren: That is OK. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 61 is for the DUP. Mr P Robinson: The first two sentences are unnecessary. The paragraph should start with the words: “The party was content with the proposal, with the addendum that …” The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are you saying: “The DUP was content”, because we referred to you earlier as the DUP? Mr P Robinson: Yes. We should remove the first two sentences. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 62 is for the UUP. Mr Kennedy: Replace the word “perhaps” with “potentially”. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 63 is a simple record. Paragraph 64 is for the DUP, and is a reflection of the minutes. Let us check that the party is happy with that. Dr Farren: The paragraph could be amplified to reflect that, when we spoke on the issue, the SDLP was not saying that the institutional review Committee should not consider those things. The point I made at the time was that this Committee should not be dictating what the institutional review Committee should or should not be considering. If issues along the lines set out in paragraph 64 were brought to that Committee, obviously it would consider them. However, I recall making the point that this Committee should not be determining the agenda for other Committees. I would not want it understood that the SDLP objected to the institutional review Committee considering such matters; rather, we object to the attempt to make the Assembly responsible for determining the agendas for Committees. The institutional review Committee could consider whatever issues are brought to its attention, including this issue. In case anyone thinks that the SDLP is opposed to discussing such matters, that is not so. I do not have wording. Mr P Robinson: Do you want a sentence or paragraph added to the effect that the SDLP did not object to the institutional review Committee considering these matters, but felt it unnecessary to have it in legislation that it should do so? Dr Farren: Yes. Thank you very much. [Laughter.] Mr P Robinson: And Sinn Féin agreed with that. [Laughter.] Dr Farren: A small fee is payable for such a pleasure. The Chairman (Mr Wells): An SDLP policy has been drafted by the hon Member for East Belfast. Mr Kennedy: You do not write manifestos as well, do you? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are members happy with that co-operation to amend paragraph 64? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We move on to the heading “Efficiency Review Panel”, which is dealt with in paragraph 13 of annex A of the St Andrews Agreement. The opening comment is from Sinn Féin. Mr O’Dowd: That is a fair enough reflection of the Hansard report. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The DUP believes that the proposal is sensible. Mr P Robinson: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The UUP is supportive of the proposal. Mr Kennedy: OK. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Finally, the Alliance Party and the SDLP both support the proposal in principle, but wish to see more detail. That deals with paragraph 68. We shall move on to the repeal of the Northern Ireland Act 2000, which is referred to in paragraph 14 of annex A of the St Andrews Agreement. Paragraph 69 of the draft report outlines the UUP’s position. Mr Kennedy: Yes, I agree with paragraph 69. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 70 of the draft report shows that Sinn Féin would like the Act to be repealed “sooner rather than on restoration”. Mr O’Dowd: That is a fair reflection. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 71 states that the Alliance Party and the SDLP support the proposal. Paragraph 72 outlines the DUP’s position. Mr P Robinson: Yes, that is OK. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 73 is straightforward. We shall move on to the “Community Designation“ section of the annex. From recollection, the Alliance Party dominated these discussions. Mr Ford: No, the other parties, discussing the Alliance Party, dominated the discussions. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Alliance Party’s stance is recorded in paragraph 74 of our draft response. Mr Ford: I am content with the way in which my party’s views have been recorded. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 75 shows Sinn Féin’s position. Mr O’Dowd: I am checking the accuracy of paragraph 75 against the minutes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is worth noting that if members are having trouble finding particular items in the documents, the Committee Clerk has a photographic memory of all the pages. The Committee Clerk: I think that Mr O’Dowd is looking for page 58. Mr O’Dowd: Paragraph 75 is OK. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 71 shows that the Alliance Party and the SDLP support the proposal. Paragraph 72 states the DUP’s position. Dr Farren: Where are we? The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am sorry: I meant to move on to paragraph 76 of the draft response, which shows the UUP’s position on community designation. Mr Kennedy: Paragraph 76 reflects our view. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 77 outlines the DUP’s position. Mr P Robinson: Which paragraph are we on? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 77 of the draft response. Mr P Robinson: Yes, I agree with paragraph 77. The Chairman (Mr Wells): David, are you content with paragraph 78? Mr Ford: The wording is accurate. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It was lifted from the minutes. Paragraph 79 was also lifted from the minutes. We shall move on to strand two and strand three issues, which are dealt with in paragraphs 80 to 98 of our draft response; that is something that might encourage members. Paragraph 19 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement addresses the future of the North/South implementation bodies. Sinn Fein’s position is outlined in paragraph 80 of the draft response. Mr O’Dowd: That is a fair reflection of our view. Mr P Robinson: Paragraph 81 is OK. 4.00 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 82 is from the UUP. Mr Kennedy: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 83 is from the Alliance Party and the SDLP. Mr Ford: That is OK. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 84 is from myself. The next heading is “Assembly/Oireachtas scrutiny of implementation bodies”, and the proposal was agreed. A “North-South Parliamentary Forum”, is mentioned in paragraph 21 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement. Paragraph 68 of the Committee’s response contains Sinn Féin’s position. Mr O’Dowd: That is a fair reflection. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 87 is from the DUP. Mr P Robinson: The words “encourage the Assembly to establish ” should be replaced with “consider whether the Assembly should establish”. Until the Assembly is set up, one cannot say what it will do. It is also worth pointing out to Seán that elsewhere, and without SDLP objections, we seem to be prepared to set agendas for various people. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Let us move to paragraph 88: “The Alliance Party and the SDLP both supported the proposal”, which, from memory, I am pretty certain they did. What about the UUP? Mr Kennedy: We are content. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 90 is factual. The next heading is “Independent Consultative Forum”, which is covered by paragraph 22 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement. Sinn Féin and the SDLP supported the proposal. The Alliance Party’s position is covered by paragraph 92 of the Committee’s response. Mr Ford: That is fine. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I remember clearly that the UUP and the DUP opposed the proposal. Paragraph 94 is factual. The next heading is “Secretariat of British-Irish Council”, which is covered by paragraph 23 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement. We are creating a great number of jobs. I remember that there was no consensus on this proposal, and Sinn Féin abstained. Again, the record has been taken from the minutes. Is everyone happy with that? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next heading is “East-West Inter-parliamentary Framework”, which refers to paragraph 24 of annex A to the St Andrews Agreement. That is led by the UUP. Mr Kennedy: That seems to be all right. Dr Farren: Paragraph 97 of the draft response contains the words “embrace everyone”, which is probably going a little bit too far. I do not have an exact phrase in my head, but the reference should be to the appropriate assemblies and Parliaments — or whatever they have on the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Including Jersey and Sark — we have interesting visits ahead. Dr Farren: “Everyone” is a handy little word, and I am all for embracing everyone. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Could we insert the words “assemblies and legislatures on the two islands”? Mr Poots: Or, “as appropriate in the British Isles”. Dr Farren: Yes. Mr Ford: There are more than two islands involved, Mr Chairman. Dr Farren: Well. Mr Ford: What about, “on these islands”? Mr Poots: Is “British Isles” not the official title for these islands on the map, Mr Chairman? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is there any support for the term “British Isles”? I threw that in to cause a bit of disruption. Mr Ford: You were doing quite well until then, Chairman. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will insert the words “these islands”. Paragraph 98 is factual. The next heading is “Other Institutional issues considered by the Committee that are not in Annex A of the St Andrews Agreement”. The Committee had a catch-all proposal, as there were issues such as the Executive’s power to call for persons and papers. There was consensus on the proposal, and members will see it in paragraph 99 of the Committee’s response. It went through smoothly; I chaired that meeting. Mr O’Dowd: Mr Chairman, to refresh my memory, does paragraph 99 refer to the North/South bodies? Mr P Robinson: No. The Committee Clerk: Annex A dealt with all the institutions; paragraphs 1 to 5 dealt with the ministerial code, and paragraphs 16 to 18 dealt with North/South Ministerial Council issues in relation to the ministerial code. The remaining paragraphs concerned the North/South Ministerial Council and other institutional issues. After the Committee had considered those, it was asked whether the Executive should have the power, which they do not currently have, to call for papers and witnesses. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr Murphy was fairly relaxed about that. Mr O’Dowd: It is all right; my memory has been refreshed. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will move on to sanctions. There was a significant debate on this at the last meeting. There was not complete agreement, and Peter Robinson’s concerns are outlined in paragraph 100. It is important to establish whether the DUP feels that that paragraph is an accurate representation of what was said. Mr Poots: I have not been elevated to make that decision. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is Mr Robinson coming back? Mr Poots: No. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The paragraph has been lifted from Hansard, so it should be reasonably accurate. Mr Poots: We are happy with it. Mr Kennedy: The Chairman does not appear to be convinced. The Chairman (Mr Wells): No, there is quite a lot to that paragraph; there is much to absorb and reflect upon. There was a very back-and-forth discussion on this issue. Mr Poots: I will take any risks associated with this, Mr Chairman. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Thank you. Sinn Féin’s response is detailed in paragraph 101. Mr O’Dowd: The second sentence is very difficult to read. Is it lifted straight out of the Hansard report? The Committee Clerk: Yes, it taken from page 62 of the first edition of the Hansard report. Mr Poots: It is not like Sinn Féin to use ambiguous language, Chairman. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Do you want to rephrase it? Mr Ford: On what pages in Hansard can that be found? The Committee Clerk: The relevant section is from around page 60 onwards of the first edition of the Hansard report. The Alliance Party section is on page 63. Mr O’Dowd: From a quick read of it, paragraph 101 is not completely lifted from Hansard. Hansard reads better and more clearly than paragraph 101, which states: “It was of the view that a party had the option of walking out if it no longer wanted to serve.” I think that there are a few typos in that sentence. Am I right? Ms Ruane: That is reflected in three sentences in Hansard. Mr Kennedy: Is that on page 62 of Hansard? The Committee Clerk: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): As we did with the SDLP, could somebody from Sinn Féin clear that tomorrow to ensure that the party is happy with the wording? Paragraph 102 outlines Seán and Alban’s views. Alban, you have been very quiet. Mr A Maginness: Yes. Mr Poots: Keep going, Chairman, we are nearly there. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Seán, do you have any views on paragraph 102? Dr Farren: To a certain extent, I suppose that I am caught by my own words. I am trying to find my precise contribution in Hansard. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is on pages 62 and 63 of the first edition of the Hansard report. Dr Farren: I certainly acknowledge that there was an issue to be addressed. In the same contribution, I said that I was unhappy with the current situation. It would be sufficient to put a full stop after “addressed” and leave out the rest of the paragraph. Paragraph 102 is not completely inaccurate. After the words: “recognised that there was an issue to be addressed” it would be more accurate to insert: “the party was unsure what other forms”. Would that be OK? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Paragraph 103 concerns issues that are of interest to the Alliance Party. Mr Ford: I am content with paragraph 103. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 104 deals with UUP matters. Mr Kennedy: Paragraph 104 reads in the draft a bit like the shorter catechism. Mr Poots: We know what he is getting at, but we do not quite understand. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Perhaps we should explain to members from the other side of the House what the shorter catechism is. Mr Kennedy: I do not think that we have the time. [Laughter.] Mr Poots: We might have to explain that to the Chairman as well. Mr McFarland: Perhaps it is a case of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Mr Kennedy: The final word of the first sentence on page 64 of the first edition of the Hansard report reads as “trialled”. It reads as “trailed” in the draft response; it might be best as “tested”. That phrase would therefore be: “the IMC system had not yet been tested”. Thereafter, paragraph 104 becomes very complicated. In fact, on page 64 of the Hansard report, Mr McFarland has outlined the case with more clarity than did those who deciphered what he said. That is not a criticism; we were near the end of the meeting. Perhaps that paragraph can be reworked on that basis. The Committee Clerk: OK. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Paragraph 105 concerns DUP issues. Mr Poots: That paragraph is OK. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Before we move on — Ms Ruane: I would like to return to our discussion about the use of language. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Are you referring to the use of the words “he” and “she”? Ms Ruane: Yes. I would like that response to go to Mr Hain; therefore, we need a factual recording of the issue and the vote that was taken on it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes; I am surprised that the lady members of our staff missed that. We are content that we should encapsulate that discussion and the vote on it. Getting through this afternoon’s work was a difficult procedure. I am concerned that, because of the way in which we conducted the meeting, in a couple of days’ time someone will say that something was added or missed or that someone had inadvertently signed up to all-Ireland unification or closer British links — [Interruption.] Mr Kennedy: Yes, we heard you say that. Dr Farren: Or perhaps discussed how to contribute to the fund. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): Perhaps someone will say that they signed up to paragraph 16 of annex A of the St Andrews Agreement without knowing. Are members content? I was conscious that you were reading the St Andrews Agreement, our response and the first edition of the Hansard report while trying hurriedly to come up with comments. That is not the best way in which to deal with such an important report. However, our difficulty is that it must be submitted to the Secretary of State tomorrow. Mr Kennedy: I suggest that, if possible, the cleaned-up version of the response be made available to the parties in the morning so that they could check it for a copy deadline of 12.00 noon. Mr Poots: Might it be emailed out with the amendments highlighted? 4.15 pm The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is a slight technical issue; it is now 4.15 pm — Mr Poots: The response must be ready for tomorrow anyway. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, but significant changes must be made to it as a result of the comments that were made this afternoon. Mr McFarland: Could it perhaps be ready for 3.00 pm tomorrow? Mr Kennedy: Yes. If we had the response by 12.00 noon, we could clear it by 3.00 pm or 4.00 pm. Is that reasonable? Mr Poots: We are relatively comfortable with everything that has been discussed. Parties wanted clarification on three particular issues, but outside of that, we are comfortable. The Chairman (Mr Wells): That was my next question: what if 3.00 pm comes and a party then says that the response is a travesty of what its members said? Mr Poots: If they did not say it today, why should they come back tomorrow and say it? The Chairman (Mr Wells): They could perhaps say that, because, in my opinion that was not a good way to prepare a report. However, if members are content, far be it from me to try to change their views. If we get to 3.00 pm tomorrow and a party is not happy with a section that refers specifically to it, it has a right to put its views accurately. However, it is slightly more difficult when it comes to issues that do not refer simply to one party. Mr Kennedy: I cannot really see that any significant change of emphasis or agreement is possible after today. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We will allow only factual changes now. Who will receive the response on behalf of each party? Mr Kennedy: Mr McFarland will take it for the Ulster Unionist Party. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The other option is to have a meeting at 4.00 pm tomorrow and go through the final version. However, I suspect that members will not be happy with that. Mr Kennedy: They will not be happy with having a meeting simply to discuss the summary. Dr Farren: Is it possible to email the response to me, as I may not be present tomorrow? I will be able to access it by email before lunchtime. If I am in the Building tomorrow, I will be able to read the copy that is left in my party’s office. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is it best to leave one copy in each party office by noon tomorrow? Mr Poots: That could be done. Mr McFarland: Or they could be left in members’ pigeonholes. Mr Poots: No — party offices, please. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Copies should be left in party offices by 12.00 noon: that is a tall order. Mr O’Dowd: Are you seeking clarification by 3.00 pm tomorrow? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes. Mr Poots: If amendments are highlighted, members can respond quicker. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There are one or two other matters to sort out. Should each Assembly Member receive a copy of the Committee’s response once we have approved the document? That would be equivalent to making a decision on publishing the document — and we have had difficulties with that before. Are members content for the response to be published? Mr McFarland: This is the new dawn in the wake of the St Andrews Agreement — Sinn Féin will not object to the report being published. Mr O’Dowd: As I clarified at the start of the meeting, this is not a report. Mr Poots: It would be inappropriate for Assembly Members not to know their party’s views on the issues. Mr Kennedy: Does the Committee request that the Secretary of State initiates an Assembly debate on the contents of the response? Mr Ford: Danny, you were winning: quit while you are ahead. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We were going well, Danny. Mr Kennedy: There is a fox in the hen house, Chairman. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We are supposed to back them, Danny. Let us move on to the next one. A plenary debate would be a matter for the Business Committee to decide. We meet every Tuesday for lunch: that is about all we do. Mr Kennedy: I am told that they are very good lunches. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It will be up to the Business Committee to decide whether the matter will be debated in the Assembly, and for the Secretary of State to agree to that. Are members content that the response be printed and a copy sent to every Member? Members indicated assent. Dr Farren: Is it intended that the legislation is to be presented on 20 November? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes: that is why we must deliver our response by tomorrow. Dr Farren: Yes, of course. The debate will probably take place the following week or the week after that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We have agreed on the first matter. Dr Farren: It is too late to have a row. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Can we agree to publish the response on the Assembly’s website, so that the public and the press can have access to the document? Members indicated assent. Mr Poots: There is no doubt that the press will be able to access it anyway as it is being sent to 108 MLAs. You might as well be upfront about that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am sure that Assembly Members would not behave like that. Dr Farren: You are one of them, Mr Poots. Mr Poots: Perhaps, but I would not be the one who would send it to the press. Mr Kennedy: Let us see how many hits there are on the website. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next issue is the suggestion that the Committee issues a press release. The press hangs on every word of wisdom that comes from the Committee. A press release has been drafted. It has the snappy headline: “Committee agrees response to Annex A of the agreement at St Andrews”. Mr Kennedy: It was a somewhat agreed response. Mr Ford: Could we stop after the word, “agrees”, Chair? Mr Poots: Should it not say: “Committee fails to disagree”? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Before we get into the nitty-gritty, do we have copies of the draft press release? The Committee Clerk: Yes. Mr McFarland: The headline is ambitious, given the content of the response. Should it not read: “Committee discusses response to Annex A”? Mr O’Dowd: I do not agree with using the word “response”. Mr Kennedy: Perhaps it should read: “Committee responds to Annex A”. That title better reflects the content of the press release. The Chairman (Mr Wells): When members have had a quick look at the draft press release, we can decide whether we wish to issue one. If we do not, we need not get into the argument about its content. Mr O’Dowd: We see no need for the Committee to issue a press release. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I think that the Ulster Unionists would be of the same view. What is the SDLP’s view? Dr Farren: We have no problem with it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Is the Alliance Party relaxed? Mr Ford: We have no problem with issuing it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): What is the DUP’s view? Mr Poots: The press should be informed that we have concluded this piece of work. That should be done in the form of a press release, and we should be agreeing its content. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The votes show that a majority is in favour of issuing a press release. Mr O’Dowd: No. We require consensus. Mr McFarland: If we issue a press release to journalists this afternoon, when the response to the Secretary of State is not on the website, there will be all sorts of trouble. The response will probably not be on the website for a couple of days, because it will not be with the Secretary of State until tomorrow. It presumably takes a while to put documents on the website. There is no point in issuing a press release to the media today, and getting them excited on the six o’clock news, when there is no response for them to see. Mr Poots: It cannot go out today anyway. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It will have to be held back until the response is available on the website. Mr Kennedy: The press release could be embargoed until 1 November, which is All Saints’ Day. Mr O’Dowd: We do not have consensus on the issuing of a press release. Mr Poots: Consensus is not required. Mr O’Dowd: It is required. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We must have consensus on this matter, because it concerns the Committee’s overall way of working rather than its response to the Secretary of State. It looks as if there will not be a press release. Mr Kennedy: The proposal falls. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Finally, as we have agreed, the next meeting will be on Wednesday 15 November at 10.00 am. Mr Molloy will be in the Chair on that day. It could well be our last ever meeting. Dr Farren: You can open your cabinet on that day, Chairman. Adjourned at 4.22 pm. |